The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, but I do note that there does seem to be a consensus that this article is in need of major editing and contains a strong element of original research and POV. I also note that this AFD is rife with irregularities, including movement of editor's comments and the comments to the effect that this is somehow a "vote". I'm sure this was all done in good faith, but it wasn't particularly helpful to sorting through this mess and the parties responsible are strongly cautioned to not do this in the future. Those irregularities alone nearly made me relist this for another, cleaner AFD and I would say this close is without prejudice against another AFD at some point if the core issues here are not sufficiently addressed.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms[edit]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Closing Admin: Please see the talk page of this AfD for additional yakkity yak about this nomination, including some votes that will inevitably get lost in all the discussion that doesn't belong here. Avruch^Talk 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that this article be deleted because of A7, and possible G5.

It appears to be a transparent attempt to boost the image of the group calling itself Messianic Jews (henceforth: MJ) by means of presenting it on equal footing with Christianity and Judaism.

It has been argued on the article's talk page that using MJ helps to illustrate differences and commonalities between Christianity and Judaism. I would contend that the Christianity and Judaism article does this sufficiently, and this article is redundant at best.

MJ is a fringe group which is rejected (often with much venom) by all Jewish groups, and is looked askance at by many Christian groups as well. Those which support it do so as part of missionary efforts.

In short, MJ is more of a tactic than a group, and to the extent that it is a group, it is a marginal one, and does not merit being set on an equal level with Christianity and Judaism. LisaLiel (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions[edit]

Please place your vote here with a brief description of your reasoning. If you wish to use a lengthy rebuttal, please take it to the talk page or use a ((hidden begin|title=''See replies to this vote''|toggle=left)) TYPE COMMENTS HERE ((end hidden)). Please keep all further replies within the previous tag.

The first 11 votes have been extracted from lengthy comments and discussions. Please see the talk page for complete reasonings.

Please note: as votes change - the most recent vote is often below in the comment section - users are not updating this vote summary consistently:

• Strong Keep - Egfrank (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - [ though for reasons described below (see User:DGG vote comments) I believe the neutral terms column should be removed. Egfrank (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]. - problem column is in the process of being has been removed.Egfrank (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• article provides useful roadmap through a large number of religious terms and links to their associated articles
• article covers notable concern of Jewish and interfaith leaders - see article intro
• changes have been made to address many of the issues raised in this AfD - how does one reliably interpret the votes made prior to those changes?
• article is verifiable - multiple sources available - see talk
• article is actively under construction - sources are being added every day
• nominator appears to be using AfD to resolve edit dispute (see WP#Discussion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: The person nominating the AfD is actively making changes to the page she is trying to have deleted. That, if nothing else, should invalidate the request. It's much easier to disrupt a page you want destroyed than to improve a page you want kept. Although many valuable entries have been made by the nominator, there is a definite conflict of interest involved, and Wikipedia should be above that.Tim (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Invalid deletion reason -- Lisa writes "It appears to be a transparent attempt to boost the image of the group calling itself . . .Tim (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , Do Not Deleat Insufficient grounds . . .Pilotwingz (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)..... This nomination for deletion does not meet qualifications for Wiki. Deletion Policy WP:DP ...... Editorial disputes are not deletion qualification , refer dispute to WP:DR..Pilotwingz (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . . . Give me citations, because right now this looks like a big pile of OR and POV. 56 items in the chart, 3 different view points and only 21 citations? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#DIR (repositories of topics, directory style entry, and non-encyclopediic cross-cat). Mbisanz (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as a classic example of OR. The column of the chart, proposed neutral meaning" is the invention of the WP editors. DGG (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  **Changed to Keep on the basis of the further discussion below--I think the article can be improved sufficiently.DGG (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. IZAK (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: Promotional original research is one out of several reasons why. -- 85.167.235.0 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC) This is my previous vote when I was not logged in. See below for my logged-in vote. -- Olve (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Relist for AfD. I know that's an odd request, but this is the strangest AfD I've ever seen. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 11:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --YoavD (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: See related vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is basically OR. --Redaktor (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Format is wrong. Apart from this, and its twin, with the (mostly empty) Moslem district, the only glossary using a wikitable is Glossary of the Greek military junta. This is a Long, Long Wikitable.--12.72.150.186 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pause:Give the editors on this project a bit more time. See my reasons under Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms#Time Limit.--agr (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, which precisely covers an article of this type. I see no need to address other policy issues. A glossary itself violates WP:NOT#DICT regardless of the topic(s) the glossary is on, so I see no point in discussing any questions relating to those topic(s). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WP:NOT#DICT does not apply to glossaries. See Portal:Contents/List_of_glossaries --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Java7837 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite its references almost completely WP:NOR, leaving alone the egregious WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT violation by suggesting messianism is on equal footing with Judaism and Christianity. Not salvageable in any form, IMO. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. A glossary of commonly used terms in Judaism and Christianity with links to longer terms has the potential to be a valuable guide. The original research can be removed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mikka. Avruch^Talk 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Obvious keep - G5? Banned user? Bwuh? I don't understand the usage of CSD criteria in the nom. In any event, undue weight etc. are content concerns, not reasons for deletion. Avruch^Talk 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOT#DIR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: A clear case of promoting a fringe group and attempting to use Wikipedia to make it seem more mainstream. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of invalid reasons for removal based in part on unsourced OR and misapplication of NOTs/NOs. WP:NOT#DICT/DIR, WP:WEIGHT not applicable to multi-religious phenomenons, WP:POV/NOR not applicable to entire article, etc. etc. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Those are quite a few wikipedia policies to count off as being invalid or n/a. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as pov-fork of Christianity and Judaism  ⇒ bsnowball  06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup (I was thinking exactly what Capitalroadster said). It's a useful guide to readers and the OR issues can be addressed. --MPerel 06:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, the undue weight given here in objections to the includance of Messianic Judaism as a qualifiable Abrahamic faith , are precisely the reason for qualifiable includance .Pilotwingz (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Content fork with promotional original research. -- Olve (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, very useful list explaining allot more in-debt that just a mere dictionary the terminology and its basic meaning, in the Judaic-Cristian faith that shaped and formed so much of our existence. Very encyclopedic indeed. Although i would add more sources it should not read like OR--יודל (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, review in a couple of months. Article appears to be being heavily worked on, and has already been substantially improved. Especially with the deletion of the "neutral" column, this is already a substantially different article to the one which was nominated. Article shows potential for further improvement, and to become a valuable encyclopedic resource. It's a serious article, increasingly better referenced. Let's see where the editors can take it. It doesn't deserve to be strangled at birth. Jheald (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not a glossary, this is a full-blown exegesis. And its long descriptions combine into one long multi-fork, with all its problems: difficulty of maintenance of several texts, problems with synchronization and POV subtleties. Each term must be treated in a carefully referenced way in a single place, which is its own article. `'Míkka>t 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mikka above correctly points out that this is exegesis. It's also POV--the selection of terms for a "glossary" implicitly comments on one person's perspective of what the points of conflict or dispute are between these faiths. If this were written out in prose, it would be apparent that those points would need references & cites. This article simply attempts to route around that problem by presenting the information in tabular form and calling it a glossary. --Lquilter (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detailed discussions on the talk page amply demonstrate why this is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. This is not a matter of simply trying to figure out whether something is reliably sourced; the discussions are amounting to doctrinal discussions. Massive amounts of citations on all sides will be adduced which further highlights Mikka's point that each one of these items really should be a separate article to be addressed adequately per WP guidelines. Again, the tabular format attempts to disguise the conceptual difficulties here. Tables should not be used for substantive content, and this article is a beautiful example of how doing so can be so entirely problematic. --Lquilter (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a glossary is good for a small amount of terms in a particular field. A glossary to doesn't give definitions but instead compares and contrasts the terms in different religions (many have no relevance in one or more of those religions) confuses the issue much more than it explains it. Jon513 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:COATRACK Mayalld (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup as per those who voted for this combination above. Possibly Rename as per Jheald's Note. Nahum (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. Will never be anything more than a glossary of dictionary definitions, and effectively unnecessary as most of these terms have their own articles already. I'd suggest considering a transwiki to Wiktionary, but I doubt they'd accept it. Neıl ☎ 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Process Note... I changed the header from "Votes" to "Opinions". Articles for Deletion is not a vote and it is a bit misleading to those who may be less familiar with the process to label it as such.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.